Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (1973)

Case Title & Citation

• Case Title: Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Others v. State of Kerala and Another (1973)
• Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461, (1973) 4 SCC 225

Court Name & Bench

• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: A historic 13-judge Constitutional Bench, the largest ever convened at the time
• Judges: Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, along with Justices J.M. Shelat, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover, A.N. Ray, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, D.G. Palekar, H.R. Khanna, A.K. Mukherjea, Y.V. Chandrachud, M.H. Beg, S.N. Dwivedi, and B.K. Mukherjea
• Bench Type: Constitutional Bench

Date of Judgment

• Date: April 24, 1973

Parties Involved

• Petitioner/Appellant: Kesavananda Bharati, the head of the Edneer Mutt, a Hindu religious institution in Kerala, along with other petitioners, challenged the constitutional validity of certain amendments that affected their fundamental rights, particularly property rights.

• Respondent/Defendant: The State of Kerala and the Union of India, defending the amendments made to the Constitution to implement land reforms and other socio-economic measures.

 Facts of the Case

In the early 1970s, Kesavananda Bharati, the spiritual leader of the Edneer Mutt in Kerala, found his institution’s land holdings under threat due to the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as amended in 1969. The Act aimed to redistribute land to promote social equity but restricted the property rights of religious and charitable institutions. Feeling that these restrictions violated the fundamental rights of the Mutt, particularly the right to property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, Kesavananda Bharati filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India.

The case, however, went beyond the issue of land reforms. It became a landmark battleground for examining the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. The petitioners challenged the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendments, which were enacted to overcome judicial rulings that had previously struck down laws infringing on fundamental rights. The 24th Amendment (1971) clarified Parliament’s authority to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The 25th Amendment introduced Article 31C, prioritizing certain directive principles over fundamental rights, and the 29th Amendment placed specific Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, shielding them from judicial review.

This case was set against the backdrop of earlier judicial decisions, such as Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), where the Supreme Court had ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. The government sought to reverse this limitation, leading to a direct confrontation between parliamentary supremacy and judicial oversight. The case thus raised profound questions about the balance of power in India’s democratic framework.

Issues Raised

The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing several critical legal questions:

• Can Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, under Article 368?
• Does Parliament’s amending power have any implied limitations, or is it absolute?
• Is the 24th Amendment, which clarified Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights, constitutionally valid?
• Is the 25th Amendment, particularly the introduction of Article 31C, valid in prioritizing directive principles over fundamental rights?
• Can laws placed in the Ninth Schedule via the 29th Amendment be immune from judicial review if they violate fundamental rights?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments

• The petitioners, led by Kesavananda Bharati, argued that the Constitution embodies certain core principles that cannot be altered, even by constitutional amendments. They contended that fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III, form an essential part of the Constitution’s structure and cannot be abrogated.
• They relied heavily on the Golaknath decision, asserting that amendments affecting fundamental rights were beyond Parliament’s amending power under Article 368.
• The 24th Amendment was challenged as an attempt to grant Parliament unchecked authority, which could undermine the Constitution’s foundational values.
• Regarding the 25th Amendment, the petitioners argued that Article 31C, by giving precedence to directive principles over fundamental rights, disrupted the constitutional balance and effectively nullified judicial review.
• The inclusion of land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule (via the 29th Amendment) was contested as an attempt to shield unconstitutional laws from scrutiny, violating the rule of law.
• The petitioners cited constitutional provisions like Articles 13, 19, and 31, as well as the principle of separation of powers, to argue that unchecked amendments could lead to authoritarianism.

Respondents’ Arguments

• The State of Kerala and the Union of India defended the amendments, emphasizing Parliament’s sovereign power to amend the Constitution under Article 368. They argued that this power was unlimited, as the Constitution itself did not explicitly restrict amendments.
• The respondents asserted that the 24th Amendment was a necessary clarification to overturn the restrictive Golaknath ruling, ensuring Parliament’s ability to adapt the Constitution to changing socio-economic needs.
• On the 25th Amendment, they contended that Article 31C was essential to prioritize directive principles (like social justice and equality) over individual rights, particularly in the context of land reforms aimed at reducing inequality.
• The 29th Amendment, they argued, was a legitimate exercise of Parliament’s power to protect laws in the Ninth Schedule from judicial interference, ensuring the implementation of progressive reforms.
• The respondents cited precedents like Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), which had upheld Parliament’s unfettered amending power.

Judgment / Final Decision

• In a historic 7:6 verdict delivered on April 24, 1973, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments but introduced a groundbreaking limitation on Parliament’s amending power. The key outcomes were:
• The 24th Amendment was upheld, affirming that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
• The 25th Amendment’s Article 31C was partially upheld. The first part, which protected laws implementing directive principles under Articles 39(b) and 39(c) from challenges based on Articles 14, 19, and 31, was deemed valid. However, the second part, which barred judicial review of such laws, was struck down as unconstitutional.
• The 29th Amendment was upheld, allowing the inclusion of Kerala land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule, but with the caveat that such laws could be reviewed if they violated the Constitution’s basic structure.
• The Court overruled Golaknath to the extent that it barred amendments to fundamental rights but introduced the revolutionary “basic structure doctrine.” This doctrine held that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter or destroy its basic structure or essential features.
• No specific relief was granted to Kesavananda Bharati regarding the Kerala Land Reforms Act, as the Court focused on the broader constitutional questions.

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The Court’s reasoning centered on the concept of the Constitution’s “basic structure,” a doctrine that became the cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. The majority opinion, authored by multiple judges, articulated the following:

• Basic Structure Doctrine: The Constitution has certain fundamental features—such as judicial review, federalism, democracy, secularism, and the rule of law—that form its core identity. These cannot be amended out of existence, as doing so would fundamentally alter the Constitution’s character.
• Limits on Amending Power: While Article 368 grants Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute. The term “amend” implies changes that improve or adapt the Constitution, not destroy its foundational principles.
• Judicial Review: The Court emphasized that judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution, enabling courts to strike down amendments that violate the basic structure. This was critical in striking down the non-reviewable clause of Article 31C.
• Balancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: The Court recognized the importance of directive principles in achieving social justice but held that they cannot wholly override fundamental rights. A harmonious balance must be maintained.
• Precedents Cited: The Court distinguished Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh (which upheld unlimited amending power) and partially overruled Golaknath (which restricted amendments to fundamental rights). It also drew inspiration from global constitutional principles, such as implied limitations in the U.S. Constitution.
• The dissenting judges, including Justice A.N. Ray, argued that Parliament’s amending power was absolute and that the basic structure doctrine introduced unnecessary judicial overreach. However, the majority’s view prevailed, establishing a delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial oversight.

Conclusion

The Kesavananda Bharati case is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional history, fundamentally shaping the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary. The basic structure doctrine has become a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence, safeguarding the Constitution’s core values against arbitrary amendments. This decision ensured that while Parliament could adapt the Constitution to meet evolving needs, it could not undermine the democratic and secular framework that defines India. The case’s significance extends beyond its immediate context, as it has been invoked in subsequent landmark judgments to strike down unconstitutional amendments and protect fundamental rights. For instance, it influenced cases like Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) and Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), reinforcing judicial review as a bulwark against authoritarianism. From a critical perspective, the basic structure doctrine strikes a balance between flexibility and rigidity, allowing constitutional evolution while preserving its essence. However, it has sparked debates about judicial activism, with critics arguing that it grants excessive power to unelected judges. Nonetheless, the doctrine remains a testament to the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional supremacy in a dynamic democracy. This case underscores the importance of checks and balances in a constitutional framework, ensuring that no single organ of the state—be it Parliament or the judiciary—can dominate the democratic process. Its legacy continues to guide India’s constitutional evolution, making it a landmark of global legal significance.